Re: LVS Director as default gw?

To: " users mailing list." <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: LVS Director as default gw?
From: Joseph Mack <mack.joseph@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 12:52:26 -0400
Malcolm Turnbull wrote:

> I also think that would be a nice feature for LVS .. F5 call it SNAT
> (secure NAT) for daft marketing reasons and I guess 30-40% of their
> customers use it because it is so easy to configure.

in the cache-off speed trials run by webpolygraph for loadbalanced squids,
one of the requirements is that the servers (realservers in LVS-speak)
cannot be modified (no arp patches etc) and they all must be running
the public IP (VIP in LVS-speak). The loadbalancing box in front
of these servers is then tested in the trials and the servers
reply directly to the client (called "direct server return" in 

An LVS director does not fit easily into this test situation.

Anyone know how these commercial load balancers work?


Joseph Mack PhD, Senior Systems Engineer, SAIC contractor 
to the National Environmental Supercomputer Center, 
ph# 919-541-0007, RTP, NC, USA. mailto:mack.joseph@xxxxxxx
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>